The net result is feeding random noise into the algorithm produces the same result.
Sorry, though - you yourself believe this correlation don't you ?
In theory, objective scientists should have looked at his techniques and recognized that they produce nothing meaningful and ignore his papers. However, since his results are politically useful the quibbles with his techniques are ignored and his glorified curve fitting is celebrated.
Smoothing and error correction requires knowledge of the subject matter. Even a mathematician has limited ability to assess things like cofactors, or independence of variables. While it's possible that the thousands of knowledgable scientists that have read this work said nothing, it's not believable to me.
alarmist scientists can always find excuses to reject skeptical lines of argument and why practicing academics have no incentive to invest their time in exploring these lines of evidence. The net result is the public interest in undermined and climate science cannot produce the research that we need to really understand the limits of our knowledge.
Of course they could but are they ? And if so, how did they convince you ?
I see no difference between people rambling about "big oil" conspiracies and people going on about Soros. I see no difference between a moron that screams "denier" whenever someone questions some aspect of climate policy and a moron that claims that AGW is a UN plot. These people exist on all sides. Why do they have to prevent us from having a more nuanced discussion of what we know and what we do not?
Because people allow them to define points of discussion in the debate. The incredible thing is that the science is far more discrete and has more capacity for objective exploration than the economics, and than our approaches to the problem. And yet the debate on the science seems to be the more contentious one.